BINNEY'S CASE. 143

way they may have been authorized by the body politic, may be
enjoined and prohibited, (j)

It is therefore conceived, that this resolution of The Chesapeake
and Ohio Canal Company, by which these projected and in part
executed works were directed to be made, is not such a final judg-
ment of this body politic itself, as precludes this court from taking
cognizance of tike matter, and determining, whether the application
of the funds, to defray the expense of such works is an expendi-
ture for corporate purposes within the true meaning of the act of
incorporation or not.

The next ground of defence is? that the extended works com-
plained of, are altogether within the District of Columbia; the
government of which, as regards this matter, being independent of,
and alien to this republic, this court, therefore, can have no juris-
diction of the matter. It is said, indeed, that a judgment has in
fact been pronounced by a legal and competent tribunal of the Dis-
trict of Columbia; but, that is of no importance, according to the
broad ground taken, by the defendants; for, if this court has no
jurisdiction; because the matter belongs exclusively to the judi-
cial authority of the government of the District of Columbia, then
it follows, that this court is alike precluded, whether the tribunals
of that government have already, or may hereafter adjudicate upon
the subject

So far, The Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company has been con-
sidered as a body politic, deriving its corporate capacity altogether,
and exclusively from the State of Maryland; as one of the artificial
legal entities of this republic; and as standing fully and in every
respect within the jurisdiction of this court* But here, an exemp-
tion from the jurisdiction of this state is claimed, on the ground,
that it owes its existence to other governments as well as to this;
and that its works do, in fact, compose a part of the territory
belonging to those other governments, over which territory this
court can exercise no authority whatever. It is believed, that this
matter has never before been submitted to the consideration of any
of the courts of this country; and yet it presents important ques-

(j) Child v. Hudson's Bay Company, 2 P. Well. 207; Attorney-General v. The
Governors of the Foundling Hospital, 2 Ves. Jun. 43; The Mayor and Commonalty
of Colchester v. Lowten, 1 Ves. & Bea. 226; Gray v. Chaplin, 1 Cond. Chan. Rep.
451; Bromley v. Smith, 2 Cond, Chan. Rep. 5; Blain v. Agar, 2 Cond. Chan. Rep.
10; Hichens v. Congreve, 3 Cond. Chan. Rep. 796; The People v. The Utica In-
surance Company, 15 John. Rep. 358.